Summary
A Revenue Inspector's conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs.2,000 to prepare a drought-compensation report was set aside. The prosecution evidence was materially contradictory on how the tainted notes came to be placed in the bag on the appellant's motorcycle and whether he was present, the hand-wash test was negative, the complainant's wife who was present deposed to no demand, and a prior altercation was disbelieved without reasons; demand being unproved, the presumption under Section 20 did not arise and benefit of doubt was given.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt in a trap case where the hand-wash test was negative and the money was recovered from a bag on the accused's motorcycle.
- Whether contradictions between the complainant's examination-in-chief and re-examination, the trap-laying officer's account and the complainant's wife's evidence go to the root of the prosecution case.
- Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as it then stood) operates when demand is not proved.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Conviction for demanding and accepting a bribe as a public servant set aside, demand and acceptance not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 2, 19, 20, 22)
- Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Conviction for criminal misconduct by obtaining a pecuniary advantage set aside on the same ground. (¶¶ 2, 20, 22)
- Section 20 (as it then stood), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The presumption that gratification was accepted as a motive or reward does not operate where the demand itself is not proved (Om Parkash v. State of Haryana). (¶¶ 15, 21)
Held
- Minor discrepancies in evidence are not to be given undue emphasis, but contradictions and omissions that go to the root of the matter and create serious doubt about the trustworthiness of the witnesses entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt (Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh; Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka). (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The complainant's accounts of whether the appellant was with him when the notes were placed in the rexine bag on the motorcycle were self-contradictory; if the trap party, about 20 yards away, saw his signal they would also have seen him put the notes in the bag himself, which makes the subsequent hand-wash test (negative) inexplicable; the complainant's wife, who was undisputedly present and made tea, deposed that she knew of no demand; and the evidence of a prior quarrel between complainant and appellant was disbelieved by the High Court without reasons. The sequence of placement and recovery of the money, and whether it occurred in the appellant's presence, did not inspire confidence and was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- When the Court has to choose between the prosecution and defence versions in the face of reasonable doubt about the prosecution story, it should lean in favour of the defence (Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra). (¶ 19)
- Where demand is not proved, particularly against the backdrop of animus between the complainant and the accused, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not militate against the accused (Om Parkash; Purnandu Biswas; T. Subramanian). (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside, extending the benefit of doubt, and the judgments of the trial court and High Court quashed; fine, if deposited, to be refunded within four weeks; appellant already exempted from surrender; no order as to costs; application for exemption from filing a certified copy allowed.